Background - HELCOM TG... · In 2013, the MEPC, at its sixty -fifth session (13 to 17 May 2013), approved the Guidance for evaluating the Guidelines for the control and management

HELSINKI and OSPAR COMMISSIONS HELCOM/OSPAR TG BALLAST 9-2018

Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Task Group on Ballast Water Management Convention Exemptions Ninth Meeting Gothenburg, Sweden, 13-14 December 2018 Document title OSPAR-EIHA proposal for the provisional inclusion of hull fouling issues to the ToR of

the HELCOM/OSPAR TG BALLAST Code 7 - 1 Category DEC Agenda Item 7 – Open issues Submission date 29.11.2018 Submitted by The Netherlands Reference

Background

In 2011 the IMO adopted resolution MEPC.207(62), as the ‘Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species’.

In 2012, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at its sixty-fourth session (1 to 5 October 2012), approved the Guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ.792, and MEPC 64/23, paragraph 11.8).

In 2013, the MEPC, at its sixty-fifth session (13 to 17 May 2013), approved the Guidance for evaluating the Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (MEPC.1/Circ.811).

At MEPC 72 Australia, the Netherlands and New Zealand proposed a new output to the biennial agenda of MEPC for reviewing the IMO guidelines (MEPC.207(62) in document (MEPC 72/15/1). The Netherlands in particular doubted the existence of sufficient awareness of the guidelines for recreational crafts (MEPC.1/Circ.792) and suggested that there may be benefits in an awareness campaign. The Committee at this session agreed to include a new output on Review of the 2011 Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (resolution MEPC.207(62)) in the post-biennial agenda of the Committee, assigning the PPR Sub-Committee as the associated organ, with two sessions needed to complete the work (MEPC 72/17). An important note here is that it was not specifically mentioned to include a review of MEPC.1/Circ.792, but the Netherlands consider this important to include.

At the meeting of the OSPAR Environmental Impact of Human Activities (EIHA) in 2016, the Netherlands highlighted biofouling as an important pathway for non-native species and promised to commission a study to investigate the significance of Biofouling as a pathway in the Netherlands.

In 2018, at the meeting of the OSPAR-Environmental Impact of Human Activities (OSPAR-EIHA), the Netherlands provided additional information on biofouling. The recent GiMaRIS report (GiMaRIS; 2017-03) was used to further strengthen the assertion that hull fouling is one of the main pathways (vectors) of marine non-native species around the world and seems to be the main transport vector (pathway) next to Ballast water.

Further review of the data and information collected during the GiMaRIS (2017) study provoked several questions regarding the implementation and the effectiveness of the Biofouling Guidelines. The before mentioned IMO Biofouling Guidelines appears to be unknown to most recreational boat owners and harbour masters in the Netherlands. Further investigations lead to the perception that the Netherlands situation could not be different from those of other countries around the OSPAR and HELCOM regional seas.

HELCOM /OSPAR TG BALLAST 9-2018, 7-1

Page 2 of 3

OSPAR

EIHA 2018 agreed to provisionally add the issue of hull fouling to the terms of reference of the HELCOM/ OSPAR Joint Task Group on Ballast Water, subject to agreement by HELCOM Maritime and to ask the Netherlands to present a document on this issue at the next JTG- Ballast meeting, if the change to the ToR was agreed.

HELCOM

HELCOM Maritime 2018 discussed the proposed amendment to the JTG-HELCOM/OSPAR ToR to include hull fouling of recreational vessels. While some support was expressed to the proposal, concern was also raised due to the limited timeline (2017-2020) and scope of the current ToR, and the possible need to enhance the ToR more than just including biofouling of recreational vessels. HELCOM Maritime 2018 agreed that the matter should be considered further at TG Ballast before the matter could be submitted to HELCOM HOD for approval.

The Netherlands

Subsequently to the discussion at OSPAR EIHA 2018, the Netherlands commissioned a study to highlight the challenges and the opportunities for the implementation of Biofouling Guidelines for recreational boats. This study was based upon questionnaire presented in the IMO evaluation guidance document MEPC 1/Circ.811. and additional questions.

For the purpose of understanding the awareness level and the effects of the biofouling measures in the contracting parties, it is therefore valuable to evaluate within the contracting parties of the HELCOM and OSPAR conventions the implementation of Biofouling measures using MEPC1/Circ.811 as a basis.

As was also discussed at the EIHA 2018 meeting, relevant matters considered important for investigation were considered in the present study and therefore could be included in the proposed investigations by contracting parties. The relevant issues include the following:

a. Awareness in Contracting Parties about the IMO Guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ.792)

b. Existing national actions to increase the awareness concerning this guidance c. Planned or existing additional policy or measures d. Information available on hull fouling as pathway for non-native species by recreational

boating e. Best practices known against hull fouling as pathway for non-native species by recreational

boating f. Urgency for an evaluation of the IMO guidelines.

A summary presentation of the results obtained from the investigation of these six issues in the Netherlands is presented in Annex 1.

Detailed information about the entire investigation procedure, the results and the recommendations from the study is presented in the report given in Annex 2.

Next steps

To take the investigation forward to regional seas levels and even beyond, OSPAR-EIHA perceives the input from the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Task Group to be inevitable. The Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Task Group could coordinate the evaluation of the IMO Biofouling Guidelines (MEPC.207(62) and (MEPC.1/Circ.792)). The Joint Task Group on Ballast Water has the relevant structural composition and expertise to organize and develop methods for investigation while using the IMO Biofouling evaluation guidance (MEPC.1/Circ.811) as basis for the way forward. The results of the investigations could

HELCOM /OSPAR TG BALLAST 9-2018, 7-1

Page 3 of 3

contribute firstly to the existing review of the IMO guidelines within the IMO, and could presented at the annual meetings of EIHA 2019, OSPAR 2019 and HELCOM 2019 for evaluation and to consider the future activities towards the harmonised evaluation of the IMO biofouling Guidelines in Europe.

Action required

The Meeting is invited to: take note of the information provided on bio-/hull fouling as important pathway for non-native

species by recreational boating in the Dutch Delta area, North Sea coast and Wadden Sea; discuss the occurrence and relevance of hull-fouling as pathway for NIS and concerns regarding

awareness and application of IMO guidance on this issue among recreational boat owners and harbour masters in the HELCOM and OSPAR convention areas;

discuss the harmonisation of the proposed evaluation procedure of the IMO Biofouling Guidelines MEPC.207(62) (commercial ships) and MEPC.1/Circ.792, (recreational boats) with a view to contribute to the work done in IMO PPR, using (MEPC.1/Circ.811) as the basis;

consider the information in this document and the discussions at this Meeting to describe the next steps such as taking up the issue of hull fouling (recreational and commercial crafts) in the current ToR for JTG Ballast or by means of setting up a new Joint Task Group for Bio-fouling.

ANNEX 1

Highlights of the evaluation of the IMO guidelines for minimizing the transfer ofinvasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft in TheNetherlands

1. Awareness in Contracting Parties about the IMO Guidance for minimizing thetransfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craftIn general contracting parties, including the Netherlands, are well aware of the existence ofthe IMO Guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hullfouling) for recreational craft.

2. Existing national actions to increase the awareness concerning the guidanceDuring the evaluation of the IMO guidelines in August-September 2018, no national actioncould be identified with the aim of increasing the awareness concerning the guidance forminimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species. Various awareness campaignsconcerning hull-fouling were mentioned by ship-owners, maintenance providers, harbourmasters and governmental parties, but all of them targeted the problem of anti-fouling paintscontaining biocides. Most ship-owners, maintenance providers, and harbour masters pointedout that the use of biocide free anti-fouling paints appears to be linked to more foulingattaching to the boats in recent years (and certainly not a decrease), thereby increasing thepotential risk of the transfer of invasive aquatic species.

3. Planned or existing additional policy or measures taken on thisissueRegardless of the relatively low awareness of the IMO guidelines forminimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling,various IMO guidelines were followed in the marinas of theNetherlands because they were awarded Blue Flag sites (http://www.blueflag.global/ ). The coordinator of the Blue Flaginitiative (worldwide organisation) of the Netherlands indicatedduring the evaluation of the IMO guidelines that he was unaware ofthese guidelines and thereby the risk of invasive aquatic speciesrelated to hull fouling. As the Blue Flag initiative does already aim atreducing the risk of biocides in anti-fouling paints, he was veryinterested to potentially incorporating the risk of invasive aquaticspecies too. It will therefore be evaluated whether the Blue Flag initiative may be ofassistance in raising the awareness of this risk and thereby the IMO guidelines.

4. Information available on hull fouling as pathway for non-native species byrecreational boatingIn 2017 a review study was done focused on “biofouling as a transport vector of non-nativemarine species in the Dutch Delta, along the North Sea coast and in the Wadden Sea”. Basedon this study it was concluded that at present hull fouling is the main transport vector withwhich non-native marine species get introduced into the Netherlands and subsequentlytransported along the Dutch coast. This conclusion was based on the facts that harbours are,along the coast, the hotspots where most non-native species are found, and on average 59% ofall pleasure crafts in marine harbours have fouling on their hulls. Hereby a large proportion of

the pleasure crafts visiting Dutch harbours may introduce non-native species from not onlyneighbouring countries like Belgium, the United Kingdom and France, but also from othercontinents like America, Africa, Asia and Australia.

5. Best practices known against hull fouling as pathway for non-native species byrecreational boatingRelatively little is known about the best practices against hull fouling as a pathway for non-native species by recreational boating as the focus of alien species management has been ontransport vectors related to ballast water exchange and shellfish transports. Initiatives like theBlue Flag are already helping in reducing the risk of alien species being transported andintroduced by hull fouling on recreational crafts. Hereby several, but not all, IMO guidelinesfor minimizing this risk, are already followed. As these IMO guidelines describe bestpractices against hull fouling as a pathway for non-native species by recreational boating,evaluating these guidelines and increasing the awareness, will minimize the risk further.

6. Urgency for an evaluation of the IMO guidelinesAs it is clear that pleasure crafts are at present one of the main anthropogenic transportvectors of invasive aquatic alien species to and within the Netherlands, this may also be truefor other European countries. Because the IMO guidelines describe best practices forminimizing this risk, they can form a valuable tool not only for alien species management bygovernments, but also for the individual boat owners. Acknowledging the differences betweencountries and the fact that alien species management is most effective on an internationalscale, it is important that these IMO guidelines are therefore evaluated by moreOSPAR/HELCOM countries than the Netherlands alone.

u

Evaluation of biofouling guidelines in the Netherlands for the control and management of recreational ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species

Issued by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management

A. Gittenberger

GiMaRIS report 2018_72

2

Evaluation of guidelines for the control and management of recreational ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species

Date:November 2018

Report nr.:GiMaRIS 2018_72

Title:Evaluation of biofouling guidelines in the Netherlands for the control and management of recreational ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species

Author:Dr. A. Gittenberger

Address GiMaRIS:GiMaRISRijksstraatweg 752171 AK [email protected]

Issued by:Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the Netherlands

Project leader:Dr. S.H. Kabuta (RWS-WVL)

GiMaRIS holds no liabilities for damages resulting from the use of the data in this report. The client indemnifies GiMaRIS for claims of third parties connecting with the data in this report. This report was produced at the request of the client and is therefore his property. Nothing from this report may be reproduced, published, copied or otherwise used without written permission.GiMaRIS is NEN-EN-ISO 9001:2015 certified by NCK for Conducting research, providing consultancy and designing management plans for private companies and (semi-)government (NCK.2015.364.ISO9001). GiMaRIS is a member of “Netwerk Groene Bureaus” (NGB).

3


Index

1 Summary p. 4

2 Introduction p. 4

3 Material & Methods p. 5

4 Results p. 5 4.1 Questionees p. 5 4.2 Affiliations of questionees p. 5 4.3 Questionnaire p. 6 5 Conclusions p. 13

6. References p. 14

4


1 Summary

The IMO 2012 Guidance for Minimizing the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species as Bio-fouling for Recreational Craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) was evaluated in the Netherlands using the questionnaire of the IMO guidance (MEPC 1/Circ.811) for the evaluation of the Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships’ Bi-ofouling (MEPC 62/24/Add.1). This project, which was issued by the Dutch Ministry of In-frastructure and Water Management, used the in-put of 16 stakeholders including harbour masters and recreational craft owners to a yacht builder, a marina quality mark institution, the European Boating Association and member state represen-tatives. Although the recreational craft owners and harbour masters were generally unaware of the IMO guidance, they did show much inter-est in the guidance when it was explained. They mentioned possibilities for future dissemination of the IMO Guidance to recreational craft owners and marinas by harbour masters and potentially the Blue Flag marina quality mark organisation. Although IMO guidance recommendations, es-pecially concerning on-land cleaning, were al-ready followed, some of the in-water cleaning of recreational craft hulls is not done accordingly. Where much was known by all stakeholders of research projects and efforts into the develop-ment of anti-fouling systems without biocides, the potential risks of alien species within hull fouling communities and potential ways to minimize these risks were relatively unknown. Although research projects on this topic within the Netherlands appear to be scarce, some gov-ernment authorities have taken steps to carry out projects in this direction. A recent review study issued by the Dutch government (BuRO, nVWA) was done describing studies on the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling on recre-ational craft in the Netherlands since 2006.

2 Introduction

In 2011, the Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at its 62nd session adopt-ed the Guidelines for the Control and Manage-ment of Ships’ Biofouling as a means to further minimize the transfer of aquatic invasive species (MEPC 62/24/Add.1). The aim of the guidelines was to produce a globally consistent approach to managing biofouling by providing useful rec-ommendations to minimize the risks associated with all types of ships. A separate guidance was developed by IMO to assist Member States and observers who wish to collect information need-ed to undertake future reviews of these Biofoul-ing Guidelines and to do this in a consistent way (MEPC 1/Circ.811). As the Biofouling Guide-lines focused mostly on the commercial shipping industry, a separate guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft was devel-oped by IMO (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) in 2012. In 2017, a review study in the Netherlands showed that biofouling on recreational ships is an impor-tant pathway for the transfer of invasive aquatic species to and within the coastal waters of the Netherlands (Gittenberger et al. 2017) whereby hull fouling in general is assumed to be most important import vector of marine alien species at present (Gittenberger & Rensing, 2017). Fur-ther review of the data and information collected during these studies provoked several questions regarding the implementation and the effective-ness of the IMO 2012 Guidance for Minimizing the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species as Bio-fouling for Recreational Craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792). Since most of the questions posed were similar to the ones specified in the questionnaire of the IMO guidance for evaluating biofouling guidelines (MEPC 1/Circ.811), the Netherlands issued the here presented pilot evaluation of the IMO Biofouling Guidance for Recreational Craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) based on this questionnaire.

5


4 Results

4.1 Questionees

Although the stakeholders that were interviewed are anonymized in the present report, their af-filiations and backgrounds, for which they were selected as a stakeholder in the present evalua-tion are described in table 1 and the following paragraph.

4.2 Affiliations of questionees

The harbour masters and pleasure craft own-ers questioned came from marinas surrounding the Dutch Wadden Sea, i.e. the marinas of Den Helder, Oudeschild, Terschelling and Delfzijl. With the exception of the marina of Delfzijl, these marinas were all awarded the Blue Flag quality mark. The iconic Blue Flag is one of the world’s most recognised voluntary eco-la-bels awarded to beaches, marinas, and sustain-able boating tourism operators (www.blueflag.global). In order to qualify for the Blue Flag, a series of stringent environmental, educational, safety, and accessibility criteria must be met and maintained. Within the Netherlands the Blue Flag coordinator, which was one of the questio-nees, working on behalf of the KMVK founda-tion (Stichting Keurmerk Milieu, Veiligheid en Kwaliteit: www.stichtingkmvk.nl), which con-cerns a cooperation between RECRON (recre-ation & tourism trade organisation), the HISWA Foundation (water sports trade organisation), the ANWB (Royal Dutch touring club) and the KHN (catering industry trade organisation). An-other representative of a group of stakeholders concerns the president of the European Boat-ing Association (EBA: www.eba.eu.com). The EBA aims to ensure boat users are informed and consulted about EU legislation and to make their views known to relevant European institutions. The work of the EBA embraces environmental, technical and regulatory issues. As representa-

3 Materials & methods

The questionnaire in the IMO guidance for eval-uating biofouling guidelines (MEPC 1/Circ.811) was used for the evaluation of the IMO 2012 Guidance for Minimizing the Transfer of In-vasive Aquatic Species as Biofouling for Rec-reational Craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792). For an-swering the questions concerned a stakeholder inventory was done with the aim of involving stakeholders from various backgrounds includ-ing not only member state representatives but also harbour masters, recreational craft owners and boat builders in addition to stakeholders that focus specifically on minimizing the impact of marinas and recreational crafts on the environ-ment and representatives of groups of related stakeholders. Within the time planned for the questionnaires (40 hours) as many stakeholders as possible were interviewed in August-Septem-ber 2018. Hereby each of the stakeholders was contacted by phone or in person. During these conversations the stakeholders were asked to answer the questions in the questionnaire, with a focus on the ones specifically meant for them (as specified in the evaluation guidance MEPC 1/Circ.811). As not all questions are relevant for all questionees, the main questionees on the basis of which the questions were answered, are specified in the results. The answers given during the conservations were written down by GiMaRIS and checked directly afterwards for accuracy with the stakeholders concerned. By doing so, the questions in the questionnaire were explained to the stakeholders in more detail where necessary (e.g. when the IMO guidance was unknown to a stakeholder). This also en-sured that questions were answered in a consis-tent manner by the various stakeholders. If nec-essary, for the stakeholder concerned, questions and answers were translated to Dutch. Although the identities of the stakeholders are known, they are anonymized within the present report where-by the answers provided by the stakeholders are combined and summarized for each question. Where different answers to the same question were given, this is specified.

6


tives of a Dutch recreational craft builder, an en-vironmental coordinator and a paint master of a high end yacht builder were contacted. In their line of work they aim at building the best yachts possible with the technology available to their

knowledge. Two representatives of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Manage-ment, the ministry that issued the present evalu-ation, were questioned as representatives of the Netherlands member state.

Stakeholders Functions and roles

Harbour master of the marina of Oudeschild Harbour master at a “Blue Flag” awarded marina; Recreational craft owner; Service provider; Organization involved in seafarer education.

2 x Recreational craft owners in the marina of Oudeschild Recreational craft owners.

Harbour master of the marina of Terschelling Harbour master at “Blue flag” awarded marina; Service provider; Organization involved in seafarer education.

2 x Recreational craft owners in the marina of Terschelling Recreational craft owner.

Harbour master of the marina of Delfzijl Harbour master; Service provider.

2 x Recreational craft owners in the marina of Delfzijl Recreational craft owner.

Coordinator of the Blue Flag on behalf of the KMVK Coordinator marina quality mark “Blue Flag”, on behalf of the KMVK, a cooperation between the RECRON, HISWA, ANWB and KHN, i.e. trade organizations focused on recre-ation, tourism and water sports.

Environmental coordinator of luxury yachts builder Recreational craft / yachts designers and builders; Mainte-nance provider; Environmental coordinator.

Paint master of luxury yachts builder Recreational craft / yachts designers and builders; Mainte-nance provider; Anti-fouling coating applier.

President of the European Boating Association; Recreational craft owner in the marina of Den Helder

President of an European organisation focused on monitor-ing the development of national, regional, European and international legislation to protect and preserve the environ-ment, participating wherever possible to represent the inter-ests of the recreational boater; Recreational craft owner.

Representative of the member state the Netherlands Senior advisor of RWS (Ministry of Infrastructure and Wa-ter Management), responsible for issues related to national and international water management of alien species.

Representative of the member state the Netherlands Senior advisor of RWS (Ministry of Infrastructure and Wa-ter Management), used to be responsible for issues related to anti-fouling system solutions for recreational crafts, in-cluding the prohibition of tbt containing anti-fouling paints.

Director of GiMaRIS Research organisation focused on the marine environment and specialising in marine alien species related surveys and management solutions

Table 1. Stakeholders in the evaluation of the IMO guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792).

7


4.3 Questionnaire

To evaluate the level of IMO Biofouling guidance implementation for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) in the Netherlands, the IMO guid-ance for evaluation (MEPC 1/Circ.811) was fol-lowed. Although the latter (MEPC 1/Circ.811) focuses on the IMO guidelines for biofouling management in the commercial shipping indus-try (MEPC 65/22), the evaluation of the IMO guidance for recreational craft was done in a similar manner by using the same questionnaire. The answers given by the stakeholders described in table 1 are summarised and discussed. The short discussion, where applicable, includes as-pects like feasibility issues raised concerning the IMO guidance for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792), potential differences between the recreational boating and commercial shipping industry, and possible solutions to issues raised where mentioned by one of the stakeholders. Al-though most questions of the questionnaire are discussed separately in the paragraphs below, questions that clearly concern the same topic are discussed together.

Some of the answers may be redundant as the same answer was given to more than one ques-tion. They are included however to make it easier to compare the present evaluation results with a similar evaluation of the IMO guidelines more focused on the commercial shipping indus-try (MEPC 65/22), and potential future evalua-tions of the IMO guidance on recreational crafts (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) in other countries.

As is also indicated in the IMO guidance for evaluation (MEPC 1/Circ.811) not all questions are relevant for all questionees. The main ques-tionees on the basis of which the questions were answered, are therefore specified in each of the paragraphs.

4.3.1 Have you disseminated the IMO guid-ance, or communications based on the IMO guidance, to relevant parties in-cluding: shipowners and operators and shipping agents; maintenance/ recy-cling facility owners and operators; in-water inspection and cleaning service providers; ship designers; anti-fouling coating companies; Harbour Masters; and organizations involved in mari-time/seafarer education and training?

Main questionees: • Member state representatives

The Netherlands member state was actively in-volved in its original development, and has en-gaged relevant stakeholders and representatives in the development of the Biofouling guidance for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) during expert-meetings. The stakeholders and repre-sentatives have been informed on the availabil-ity of the guidelines, with the intention of futher dissemination by those parties. For example, The European Boating Association (EBS) president indicated that they actively dissemi nated the IMO guidance to their members, i.e. National Recreational Boating Associations and Federa-tions throughout Europe. The government of the Netherlands itself has not actively approached and informed individual entities or members of representatives. However, the guidelines were made available through the Netherlands Regu-latory Framework Maritime (NeRF) (formerly known as EasyRules), a service to inform the shipping industry of new rules and regulations (https://puc.overheid.nl/nsi/).

8


4.3.2 Are you aware of the guidance? Is the information in the guidance clear?

Main questionees: All questionees

With the exception of the member state repre-sentatives, the director of GiMaRIS and the presi-dent of European Boating Association none of the other questionees, including for example harbour masters and recreational craft owners (Table 1), had been aware of the IMO guidance for mini-mizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792), before this evaluation took place. It was therefore not possible within the present evaluation to assess whether the infor-mation in the guidance is clear. All questionees were aware of the risks of biocides in anti-fouling systems, but not of the risks of alien species be-ing spread by hull fouling. Especially the harbour masters and the Blue Flag coordinator were very interested to get more information about the IMO guidance for minimizing the transfer of inva-sive aquatic species. Hereby the harbour masters of the marinas of Terschelling and Oudeschild specifically referred to their marina’s Blue Flag quality mark indicating their aim to preserve the marine environment. In order to qualify for this quality mark a series of stringent environmental, educational, safety and accessibility criteria must be met and maintained ( www.blueflag.global ). One of the requirements is for example to provide

training in environmental matters and best prac-tice methods for free to marina personnel, suppli-ers to the marina and other tourist services operat-ing in the area of the marina. Videos and folders about the marine environment were accordingly presented for recreational craft owners and other interested parties in the buildings of the harbour masters. The blue flag coordinator of the Nether-lands (on behalf of the KMVK) was also unaware of the IMO guidance but very interested in hear-ing more about it as he could potentially intro-duce the guidance within an international meeting of Blue Flag coordinators. Through the Blue Flag quality mark organisation it would be potentially possible to disseminate the guidance not only to a large number of the marinas within the Nether-lands but also globally (Fig. 1; www.blueflag.glo-bal/marinas2). Some of the criteria to be assigned the Blue Flag quality mark (http://www.blueflag.global/criteria/), already match the recommenda-tions set in the IMO guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792). For example, if a marina has on-land boat repairing and washing areas, no pollution must enter the sewage system, marina land and water or the natural surroundings. Although this criterion appears to be mainly aimed at reducing the risks of pollutants and biocides within anti-fouling paints, it also reduces the risk that alien fouling species that are scraped of the hull get re-leased into the marine environment.

Fig. 1. Blue flag locations within the Netherlands and worldwide. Picture adjusted from www.blueflag.global/marinas2, © OpenStreetMap contributors and © CARTO.

9


4.3.3 Have you developed biofouling man-agement measures in addition to the guidance, e.g. national regulations? Are these measures based on the guidance? Has this additional information been provided to IMO?


In the Netherlands there is a national regulation (De Water wet), which supports water quality management measures and forbids one to throw boat scrapings from biofoulings and other waste material into surface waters in ports, marinas or in the sea. Part of this measure can be consid-ered to be a biofouling management measure for mini mizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species in biofouling (hull fouling) from rec-reational and commercial crafts. These water quality management measures are not based on the IMO biofouling guidance. They were purely developed to improve surface water quality in the Netherlands. Additional measures based on the IMO biofouling guidance may be developed but these may need to be effectively communi-cated with stakeholders and the public before implementation. Afterwards, formal reporting about the measures to IMO could be done. For formal dissemination of such measures, certain organisa tions like the Blue Flag quality mark provide the desired possibilities.

4.3.4 Are there any feasibility issues, omis-sions or errors that have meant the guidelineswiththeguidancearedifficultto implement?

Main questionees: • Harbour masters• Recreational craft owners• Recreational yachts designers & builders • Maintenance provider • Environmental coordinator • Anti-fouling coating applier

As the IMO guidance was unknown to most questionees, the guidelines for the questionees concerned were first explained, before asking for any potential feasibility issues. Although most guidelines were considered useful and feasible to apply, all harbour masters and rec-reational owners agreed that it is not feasible to request that biological, chemical and physi-cal debris is captured (and disposed of to an ap-propriate onshore facility) when doing in-water cleaning. Many of the floating docks and recrea-tional crafts are cleaned in-water in the marina and this is especially done when heavy fouling is observed, while the IMO guidance indicates only that in-water cleaning can be suitable for removing light fouling (e.g. the slime layer). The European Boating Association and one of the member state representatives were aware of hull cleaning systems that could capture debris. They indicated however that these were too expensive from a cost-benefit point of view of the average recreational craft owner. For larger (commercial) ships, which are often cleaned by specialised companies, there are various possibilities like hull cleaning underwater robots that do catch the debris. To the knowledge of the questionees such systems (at reasonable cost) are not available yet for recreational craft owners.

Another recommendation that may be feasible for the commercial shipping industry but not for recreational craft owners, concerns the advice to retain the craft’s biofouling management infor-mation within a logbook. Such a book should

10


include for example the anti-fouling system, its effectiveness over time, planned time interval between anti-fouling renewals and how niche areas should be treated. This type of logging in-formation is considered by the recreational craft owners to be more appropriate for commercial (larger) ship owners. Where it concerns recrea-tional crafts, the environmental coordinator and paint master of the yacht builder (Table 1), did indicate that they kept detailed records of the anti-fouling systems they applied to the crafts they sold and the effectiveness of these systems based on the information they received from their clients when these crafts were dry-docked for maintenance.

4.3.5 Are facilities and/or tools available to support the implementation of the Guidelines?

Main questionees: • Harbour masters• Recreational craft owners

With the exception of a ramp to take the vessel out of the water, little to no facilities were avail-able in the marinas of Oudeschild, Terschelling and Delfzijl to specifically support the imple-mentation of the guidelines. Areas within the marinas where hull could be cleaned on land did have the appropriate systems installed to make certain that debris did not flush back into the ma-rina’s water but was disposed of to an appropri-ate onshore facility in accordance with the IMO guidance. For applying anti-fouling coatings and storing recreational crafts out of the water in winter time, various more inland marinas do have facilities available.

4.3.6 Haveanysafetyissuesbeenidentifiedinimplementing the Guidelines?

Main questionees: • Harbour masters;• recreational craft owners

Where it concerns in-water cleaning of the hull it would have been good if the IMO guidance specifically indicated that it is not advisable to do this while snorkelling or scuba-diving (in a potentially busy marina). Both harbour masters and recreational craft owners indicated that they or others do occasionally go into the water with snorkelling and/or scuba-diving gear to do the in-water cleaning of hulls or floating docks. This may cause safety issues with other vessels trav-elling through the marina. Such safety issues are probably marina specific as in-water hull maintenance of larger (commercial) vessels is assumed to be mainly done by specialised un-derwater robots or professional scuba-divers.

4.3.7 Are ships developing biofouling man-agement plans and maintaining their biofouling record books?

Main questionees: • Recreational craft owners

None of the recreational craft owners questioned maintained a biofouling record book or knew of anyone maintaining such a book. They were also not planning to do so as they did not see the greater benefit in relation to the effort that it would take to maintain such a book and/or man-agement plan. The questioned yacht builder did indicate that they kept such records for the recre-ational crafts they sold and advised their clients on maintenance plans.

11


4.3.8 Are you undertaking in-water inspec-tions and in-water cleaning? Are these activities in line with the Guidelines?

Main questionees: • Harbour masters;• recreational craft owners

Yes, most harbour masters and recreational craft owners are undertaking in-water inspections and in-water cleaning. They do not do so in line with the guidelines as the debris is not captured and in-water cleaning is mostly done with increasing fouling intensities, while the IMO guidance only recommends in-water cleaning when light foul-ing (e.g. a slime layer) is present.

4.3.9 Does your facility capture hull cleaning waste to minimize the risk of it entering the water?


Yes, marinas with on-land hull cleaning fa-cilities and sites make certain that the cleaning waste does not enter the marina’s water but is disposed of to an appropriate onshore facility. This is also in accordance with the criteria of the Blue Flag quality mark, which has been awarded to a large number of marinas in the Netherlands and worldwide (Fig. 1).

4.3.10 Do your practices follow, or align with, the Guidelines?


Although the recommendations of the IMO guid-ance were not known to the harbour masters and recreational craft owners questioned, various practices follow the guidelines. Recommenda-tions that are in general followed by recreational craft owners include the switching between fresh water and marine water marinas to reduce foul-ing, the regular (usually once per year) on-land hull maintenance, the maintenance of an anti-fouling system, the capture and disposal of debris during on-land cleaning and the specific cleaning of fouling in niche areas. Practices that are done by recreational craft owners that do not align with the guidelines include the in-water cleaning with-out capturing the debris, the in-water cleaning of more heavily fouled crafts, and not maintaining a biofouling management plan and record book. Also, none of the questionees could give an ex-ample of anyone using a different anti-fouling system for niche areas. The recreational craft owners and the yacht builder questioned were interested in more information about such more niche specific anti-fouling systems.

4.3.11 Is your in-water cleaning technology able to capture most of the macro foul-ing debris from in-water cleaning?


Both harbour masters and recreational craft owners indicated that they did not have in-wa-ter cleaning technologies available to capture macro fouling debris from in-water cleaning. Possibilities mentioned by the other questionees like underwater robots and other in-water clean-ing facilities that do catch debris, were generally considered to be too costly from a cost-benefit point of view for recreational craft owners.

12


4.3.12 Are the submerged hull surfaces of ships as free of biofouling as is feasible? Have you seen a decrease over time in the amount of biofouling on submerged hull surfaces?

Main questionees: • Harbour masters • Recreational craft owners• Yacht builders

All recreational craft owners indicated that the amount of biofouling on the hulls of recreational crafts has increased with the stricter rules on biocides within anti-fouling coatings. Two craft owners indicated that they still did not have any fouling on the hulls of their recreational crafts because they managed to buy the “good stuff” from unspecified sources. Both harbour masters and pleasure craft owners did also indicate the warmer weather in recent years as a potential reason for increased fouling. The environmental coordinator and paint master of the yacht builder indicated that they were not aware of an increase or decrease of the amount of hull fouling in re-cent years since they use anti-fouling coatings with less or no biocides. They did indicate how-ever that most of their clients have the hulls of their yachts cleaned by professionals, possibly within maintenance contracts.

4.3.13 Are the niche areas of ships as free of biofouling as is feasible? Have you seen a decrease over time in the amount of biofouling in niche areas and internal seawater cooling systems of ships?

Main questionees: • Harbour masters • Recreational craft owners• Yacht builders

All questionees indicate that the niche areas are probably not as free of biofouling as is feasible. It is difficult however to find out how this is re-solved and what anti-fouling systems are avail-able for such areas. The yacht builder indicated that they do not switch between anti-fouling sys-tems on their yachts that often anymore because the system they are now using is predictable in its effectiveness. The questionees indicated that there are a large number of anti-fouling systems available, but it is very difficult to distinguish between them as they all indicate to be the best. If there would be information available from an independent, reliable source on the effectiveness of various anti-fouling systems for recreational crafts, also taking into account niche area specif-ic solutions, both recreational craft owners and the yacht builder have indicated that they would be very interested.

13


4.3.14 Have you collected information about theeffectivenessofspecificmeasures inthe guidelines through dry dock inspec-tions of ships?

Main questionees: • Harbour masters• Recreational craft owners• Yacht builders

As the IMO guidance was unknown, no informa-tion was collected about the effectiveness of spe-cific measures in the guidance through dry dock inspections of ships.

4.3.15 Do you have any information on the di-rector indirectbenefitsassociatedwithimplementing with the Guidelines? Do you have any information on the addi-tional costs associated with implement-ing the Guidelines? Are you aware of any research and/or development of technologies to improve biofouling man-agement? Are you aware of any research intoindirectorconsequentialbenefitsofimplementing the Guidelines?


No specific information could be given on the direct or indirect additional benefits or addi-tional costs associated with the implementing of the IMO guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull foul-ing) for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792). This may be because the recommendations of the guidance that are implemented were already implemented by harbour masters and recreation-al craft owner without knowing of the existence of the IMO guidance. A large number of studies have focused on the development of technologies to improve biofouling management, but most of these appear to be focused on creating and testing

biocide free anti-fouling systems and hull clean-ing technologies that focus on the outer hull and miss most niche areas. As the expressed experi-ences of the questionees indicate that with the biocide free anti-fouling the amount of hull foul-ing has certainly not decreased and may in fact have increased, these technologies do not appear to improve biofouling management where the risk of alien fouling species is concerned. This also accounts for studies that focus on cleaning the outer hull and not specifically on niche areas, which are known (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) to shelter alien species. A review study in 2017, issued by the Netherlands member state (BuRO, nVWA) could be given as an example of a study focuss-ing on the risk of alien fouling species on pleas-ure crafts in the Netherlands (Gittenberger et al., 2017). It also shortly describes the implemen-tation of recommendations from the IMO guid-ance for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) based on a large number of interviews of 143 recreational craft owners and 38 harbour mas-ters throughout the Netherlands between 2009 and 2016. As those interviews were partly done before the implementation of the IMO guidance and not done with the purpose of evaluating it, they may be less informative for the evaluation than the focused questionnaire results described in the present report. Regardless, there are not apparent differences between the results of the present study and the 2017 study where it con-cerns the implementation of the IMO guidance recommendations for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull foul-ing) for recreational craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792).

14


5 Conclusions

In accordance to the IMO evaluation guidance (MEPC 1/Circ.811) the answers to the questions in the questionnaire should be used to evaluate the biofouling guidance based on the following five performance measures:

[1] Awareness and dissemination of the Guide-lines

[2] Impediments to implementation of the Guidelines

[3] Application of the Guidelines[4] Change in level of biofouling[5] Research and Development

For each of these performance measures the IMO evaluation guidance (MEPC 1/Circ.811) has goals on which the following conclusions were made where feasible for the evaluation of the IMO guidance focussed on recreation craft (MEPC.1/Circ. 792) and possible based on the answers given in the questionnaires.

Although the recreational craft owners and har-bour masters that were questioned were unaware of the IMO guidance, they did show much in-terest. Hereby several possibilities for the fur-ther dissemination of the IMO guidance were indicated with the assistance of harbour masters and the Blue Flag network. The Blue Flag qual-ity mark for environmentally friendly marinas already sets criteria that partly overlap or are linked to IMO guidance recommendations. This is done for example by the criterion that mari-nas have to annually organize educational events aiming at raising the environmental awareness of harbour masters and recreational craft own-ers. More directly linked to an IMO guideline concerns the Blue Flag criterion concerning on-land cleaning whereby debris has to be captured and is not allowed to flush back into the marina. Where it concerns the in-water cleaning of hulls, safety issues were mentioned with snorkelers and scuba-divers. In addition no facilities or

technologies were known to the harbour masters and recreational craft owners for capturing debris during in-water cleaning as is recommended in the guidance and is obliged by Dutch law (Water wet). Similarly little was known about potential anti-fouling systems that could be used for the in the IMO guidance mentioned niche areas on the hull where alien species may reside. In recent years the level of biofouling, depending on the questionee asked, is said to have remained the same as in previous years or worse. This fouling increase is said to be related to the stricter rules on biocides in anti-fouling coatings and poten-tially the warmer temperatures. Although much is known of research projects into the develop-ment of anti-fouling systems without biocides, no specific research projects could be specified by the questionees concerning the development of technologies specifically aimed at reducing the risk of alien fouling species in for example niche areas. Concerning the risk of the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling on rec-reational craft, a review study was done in 2017 including data from various studies in marinas along the Dutch coastline since 2006.

In conclusion, although the IMO guidance was not well known among the stakeholders ques-tioned, the guidelines given are partly applied in marinas in the Netherlands. Although some of the guidelines in the guidance were not assumed feasible for recreational craft owners, the evalu-ation did not indicate the need for adding any additional guidelines. In general the guidelines in the IMO guidance were found to be adequate for their purpose to minimize the transfer of in-vasive aquatic species as biofouling on recrea-tional crafts.

15


6 References

Gittenberger, A. & M. Rensing , 2017. Transport vectors of non-native species in the Dutch North Sea. GiMaRIS rapport 2017_04: 7 pp. i.o.v. Ministry of Economic Affairs (of the Netherlands), Department of Nature & Biodiversity.

Gittenberger, A., Wesdorp, K.H. & M. Rens-ing, 2017. Biofouling as a transport vector of non-native marine species in the Dutch Delta, along the North Sea coast and in the Wadden Sea. GiMaRIS rapport 2017_09: 45 pp. i.o.v. Office for Risk Assessment and Research, Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority.

IMO, 2011 (MEPC 62/24/Add.1). Annex 26; 2011 guidelines for the control and man-agement of ships’s biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species. 25pp.

IMO, 2012 (MEPC.1/Circ.792). Guidance for minimizing the transfer of invasive aquatic species as biofouling (hull fouling) for rec-reational craft. 12pp.

IMO, 2013 (MEPC.1/Circ.811). Guidance for evaluation the 2011 guidelines for the con-trol and management of ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species. 12pp.

Documents

Background - HELCOM TG... · In 2013, the MEPC, at its sixty -fifth session (13 to 17 May 2013), approved the Guidance for evaluating the Guidelines for the control and management